Have we changed our ways after the BP oil spill? Not really

Jan 18, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- On the heels of last week's federal recommendations to help prevent another BP oil spill disaster, a University of Michigan researcher says the tragedy has come close to acting as a catalyst for deeper change -- but not quite.

"The BP oil spill is, potentially, a 'cultural anomaly' for institutional changes in environmental management and fossil fuel production," said Andrew Hoffman, professor of management and organizations at the Ross School of Business and a professor at the School of Natural Resources and Environment. "But true change in our approach to handling issues related to oil drilling, oil consumption and environmental management have yet to occur."

In a new study appearing in the Journal of Management Inquiry this June, Hoffman and colleague P. Devereaux Jennings of the University of Alberta contend that the BP oil spill is unlikely to leave a lasting legacy on our views toward fossil fuels, and energy use.

According to the researchers, when an event or issue poses a potential challenge to a dominant technological or economic institutional order, conflict ensues over the nature, meaning and response to the event. If this challenge is significant enough to generate substantial conflict, the event can become a "cultural anomaly" for the current order.

Hoffman and Jennings say that many of the ingredients that distinguish a cultural anomaly have been present throughout the disaster and its aftermath—the context of the event, the conflict between different groups and the resulting changes in society.

The BP oil spill occurred during a period of extremely heightened attention to environmental issues and came at a time when politicians and the public expect companies to be good corporate citizens (the context of the event), they say. The context certainly led to strong definition of the problem, which challenged the identities of BP and the Gulf Coast states.

And conflicts certainly arose, the researchers says, among BP, Transocean (the owner of the oil rig leased to BP), Halliburton (responsible for installing the casing on the broken well), other major oil companies (who probably delighted in BP's disaster), Minerals Management Service (the regulator with its own improprieties), the Gulf Coast states community (still struggling from the impact of Hurricane Katrina and a major national recession) and the government of the United States and Great Britain, several federal agencies and various nongovernmental environmental organizations.

In addition, the oil spill led to many change initiatives, including how to organize regional environmental relief, how to charge multinationals for pollution and distribute remuneration, and the need to reduce expectations that technology can fix large-scale operational problems in a timely manner, the researchers say.

"But, while 'social' entrepreneurs appeared in the situation to link problems with positions and solutions, and tried to leverage the events to make large-scale changes, these changes do not seem to have taken place," Hoffman said. "In the end, entrepreneurs never fully challenged the identity of the Obama administration, the oil majors or the American public and its dependence on fossil fuels.

"As a result, the BP oil spill may become a negative cultural anomaly, one that begins to lead to change, but does not, thereby reinforcing the current institutional system even more than before. Thus, the responses by the Obama administration may unwittingly represent a step backward for BP, the Gulf Coast states, U.S. energy policy and environmental approaches to management, rather than a creative step forward into a better future.

"Despite Obama's attempts to link the event to an urgent need to invest in renewable energy, the linkage delivered by him alone did not carry the power to shift the debate. The economy is still fuel-based and little serious opposition to continued offshore drilling can be expected."

Explore further: EPA staff says agency needs to be tough on smog

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

BP accused of trying to silence science on spill

Jul 23, 2010

The head of the American Association of Professors accused BP Friday of trying to buy the silence of scientists and academics to protect itself after the Gulf oil spill, in a BBC interview.

US sets up security zone around BP oil spill site

Oct 28, 2010

A security zone has been set up around the site of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to safeguard any evidence of the environmental disaster earlier this year, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

Gulf oil spill panel to look at root causes

Jul 09, 2010

(AP) -- The new presidential oil spill commission will focus on how safety, government oversight and the ability to clean up spills haven't kept up with advances in drilling technology, the panel's leaders say.

Recommended for you

Shell files new plan to drill in Arctic

Aug 29, 2014

Royal Dutch Shell has submitted a new plan for drilling in the Arctic offshore Alaska, more than one year after halting its program following several embarrassing mishaps.

Reducing water scarcity possible by 2050

Aug 29, 2014

Water scarcity is not a problem just for the developing world. In California, legislators are currently proposing a $7.5 billion emergency water plan to their voters; and U.S. federal officials last year ...

User comments : 6

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Nik_2213
not rated yet Jan 18, 2011
But why / how did that supposedly multiply-redundant blow-out preventer fail ??
apex01
1 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2011
So what should happen? A permanent moratorium so that more jobs get lost???
ormondotvos
not rated yet Jan 18, 2011
Just as corporate reaction crippled Obama's programs, the same kind of corporate spin and reaction through the media and politicians has neutralized any reaction to the BP spill.

Heckofa job, BeePee!
rwinners
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2011
But why / how did that supposedly multiply-redundant blow-out preventer fail ??


It was more than the preventer. It was EVERYTHING that failed. Management, alarm system, fire prevention, EVERYTHING.
And in 6 months, it will be business as usual again.
Skepticus_Rex_
not rated yet Jan 19, 2011
So what about a little oil spill? It's being cleaned up isn't it? The benefits far outweigh the environmental cost., lets drill in Alaska...no-one goes there anyway, its too cold! Move along...'nothin' to see
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2011
So what about a little oil spill? It's being cleaned up isn't it? The benefits far outweigh the environmental cost., lets drill in Alaska...no-one goes there anyway, its too cold! Move along...'nothin' to see


Skepticus_Rex_ (MikeyK sockpuppet) is an idiot. I am against any sort of toxics in the oceans, including crude oil.

But, with that said, there is also the fact that adjusting energy needs will take time. People just need to exercise a lot more care and not take shortcuts when it comes to the seas, if drilling is to continue. Definitely, MikeyK's sockpuppet got one thing right.

Drilling in Alaska would be better than ocean drilling since any land-based operation will be better than ocean-based drilling. Oil spills are more easily contained on land than in the sea.

Let's just not hurt the ecosystem by carelessness like people who push solar projects want to do in the deserts of California. "Ecosystem be damned! It's just open desert!" is their underlying motto.